By Emily Williams
The word “troll” used to refer to monsters in fairy tales living under bridges, but in the new age of the internet, troll has taken on a whole new meaning, as the monsters that live behind keyboards and terrorize comment sections on virtually every website.
Dealing with trolls, and other maliciously inclined commenters, is an issue of particular relevance to news websites. What is the best strategy for moderating comments and how far is too far?
Comments can be a good source of feedback for the writer, to find gaps in their reporting, viewpoints that may not be represented or even new questions to pursue. They can also encourage interaction and debate among readers who are engaging with the material. But which comments are appropriate for the web and which aren’t?
The debate about comment moderation creates tension between two important tenants of journalism, loyalty to readers and loyalty to the principles of free speech. On one hand, you want to block offensive material from the comment section so as not to offend readers; but on the other hand, you want to keep the forum open for readers to speak their minds, to encourage honest reaction and discussion. You don’t want your readers to feel like they have to compose a masterpiece before their opinions can be posted.
Once you start moderating comments, it can become a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line between what is offensive and what isn’t? Who’s judgment do you rely on to determine this? There is the potential for someone to moderate comments they disagree with and only let in comments that support their viewpoint.
Ethical philosophy presents two distinct viewpoints that can provide guidance on how to moderate comments. Teleology suggests that the best course of action is utilitarianism, providing the most good for the most people. Depending on how you interpret this, the most good could mean the comments that are least offensive to the people, or the comments that spark the best discussion for the benefit of learning.
On the other side of ethical philosophy, deontology prescribes a rule-based approach to handling the issue. Deontology would suggest that the best course of action is to establish a strict set of rules about how you’re going to moderate these comments, and following them every time.
Given that the teleological point of view can be subjective depending on one’s interpretation of the greater good, it makes the most sense to follow the deontological point of view, and outline a clear policy for moderation, which is made clearly visible to the reader.
But just what rules should be in that policy? Let’s consider what rules some of the biggest names in journalism are abiding by.
The New York Times only opens a few of its most newsworthy articles for comment each day and leaves the article open for comments for just 24 hours. Each comment is reviewed by a staff member before posting The Times’ policy for comment moderation is to reject any comments that they consider “inflammatory,” meaning they include name calling, rudeness, or obscenity.
“We see these comments as an extension of our journalism,” said NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan in a post outline comment guidelines. “We value the input of a majority of our commenters and are not willing to have their words devalued by running them alongside personal attacks, innuendo and obscenity.”
NPR has a similar approach regarding comment moderation. In a 2014 letter to NPR readers, Anne Johnson explained the specifics of NPR’s process of moderating comments and their rules for what is allowed and what isn’t.
“NPR, like many news organizations, constantly walks a tight-rope in trying to encourage both lively discussion and respect,” Johnson wrote.
NPR uses outside comment moderators, as well as reporters and editors to monitor their comment sections. Comments go through three filters, both human and machine, to prevent spam messages and monitor for offensive or off-topic content. They also give readers an option to flag messages as inappropriate.
The larger the website, the bigger a task moderation becomes. According to Johnson, NPR receives roughly 200,000 comments per month, which all go through their three-tier system.
Most effective, perhaps, are the Washington Post’s “Discussion and Submissions Guidelines” which are linked to every post on their website. The guidelines serve as a contract that the reader must agree to before submitting, which include definitions of what is considered inappropriate material and a disclaimer stating that readers are fully responsible for their own commentary.
This seems to be the most ethical strategy, because it is a clearly-defined, consistent code and readers are very well informed from the beginning what they can and cannot post.
As gatekeepers for public access to information, it is the responsibility of the journalist to monitor the discussion surrounding their story; however, journalists should establish clear boundaries of what they consider inappropriate commentary, so as to remain transparent and impartial.
How Immanuel Kant would kill trolls: A deontological approach to dealing with online comments
By Emily Williams
The word “troll” used to refer to monsters in fairy tales living under bridges, but in the new age of the internet, troll has taken on a whole new meaning, as the monsters that live behind keyboards and terrorize comment sections on virtually every website.
Dealing with trolls, and other maliciously inclined commenters, is an issue of particular relevance to news websites. What is the best strategy for moderating comments and how far is too far?
Comments can be a good source of feedback for the writer, to find gaps in their reporting, viewpoints that may not be represented or even new questions to pursue. They can also encourage interaction and debate among readers who are engaging with the material. But which comments are appropriate for the web and which aren’t?
The debate about comment moderation creates tension between two important tenants of journalism, loyalty to readers and loyalty to the principles of free speech. On one hand, you want to block offensive material from the comment section so as not to offend readers; but on the other hand, you want to keep the forum open for readers to speak their minds, to encourage honest reaction and discussion. You don’t want your readers to feel like they have to compose a masterpiece before their opinions can be posted.
Once you start moderating comments, it can become a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line between what is offensive and what isn’t? Who’s judgment do you rely on to determine this? There is the potential for someone to moderate comments they disagree with and only let in comments that support their viewpoint.
Ethical philosophy presents two distinct viewpoints that can provide guidance on how to moderate comments. Teleology suggests that the best course of action is utilitarianism, providing the most good for the most people. Depending on how you interpret this, the most good could mean the comments that are least offensive to the people, or the comments that spark the best discussion for the benefit of learning.
On the other side of ethical philosophy, deontology prescribes a rule-based approach to handling the issue. Deontology would suggest that the best course of action is to establish a strict set of rules about how you’re going to moderate these comments, and following them every time.
Given that the teleological point of view can be subjective depending on one’s interpretation of the greater good, it makes the most sense to follow the deontological point of view, and outline a clear policy for moderation, which is made clearly visible to the reader.
But just what rules should be in that policy? Let’s consider what rules some of the biggest names in journalism are abiding by.
The New York Times only opens a few of its most newsworthy articles for comment each day and leaves the article open for comments for just 24 hours. Each comment is reviewed by a staff member before posting The Times’ policy for comment moderation is to reject any comments that they consider “inflammatory,” meaning they include name calling, rudeness, or obscenity.
“We see these comments as an extension of our journalism,” said NYT Public Editor Margaret Sullivan in a post outline comment guidelines. “We value the input of a majority of our commenters and are not willing to have their words devalued by running them alongside personal attacks, innuendo and obscenity.”
NPR has a similar approach regarding comment moderation. In a 2014 letter to NPR readers, Anne Johnson explained the specifics of NPR’s process of moderating comments and their rules for what is allowed and what isn’t.
“NPR, like many news organizations, constantly walks a tight-rope in trying to encourage both lively discussion and respect,” Johnson wrote.
NPR uses outside comment moderators, as well as reporters and editors to monitor their comment sections. Comments go through three filters, both human and machine, to prevent spam messages and monitor for offensive or off-topic content. They also give readers an option to flag messages as inappropriate.
The larger the website, the bigger a task moderation becomes. According to Johnson, NPR receives roughly 200,000 comments per month, which all go through their three-tier system.
Most effective, perhaps, are the Washington Post’s “Discussion and Submissions Guidelines” which are linked to every post on their website. The guidelines serve as a contract that the reader must agree to before submitting, which include definitions of what is considered inappropriate material and a disclaimer stating that readers are fully responsible for their own commentary.
This seems to be the most ethical strategy, because it is a clearly-defined, consistent code and readers are very well informed from the beginning what they can and cannot post.
As gatekeepers for public access to information, it is the responsibility of the journalist to monitor the discussion surrounding their story; however, journalists should establish clear boundaries of what they consider inappropriate commentary, so as to remain transparent and impartial.
Share this post
Dr. Chris Roberts
Associate Professor
Department of Journalism and Creative Media at the University of Alabama.
© Chris Roberts 2022